Site Search Navigation

Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

2008: The Echoes of War

By Kate Phillips April 30, 2007 9:50 amApril 30, 2007 9:50 am

The running theme of the war in Iraq underlines many campaign appearances of the candidates from both the Republican and Democratic fields.

The Democratic 2008 contenders, many of whom now oppose the war and support a timeline for withdrawing at the very least the combat troops in Iraq, found a very receptive audience this weekend at California’s state party convention. For John Edwards, the former North Carolina senator and Democratic vice presidential nominee who was heckled there four years ago because of his vote on the war, the contrast was stark.

But from San Diego, The Times’s Adam Nagourney captures the nuances of the various candidates’s positions and the debate over moving forward:

Indeed, all the presidential candidates who spoke here Saturday and Sunday were cheered as they denounced the war, suggesting that the candidates and the Democratic base are now in line on this critical issue. But in fact, as the weekend here made clear, the Democratic presidential field, like Democratic leaders in Congress, is divided over how to respond to President Bush’s expected veto of legislation setting a timeline for removing troops from Iraq. While the candidates and party activists agree that the war should end, they differ over how quickly troops should be withdrawn, over whether the withdrawal should be accomplished by cutting off financing for troops in the field, and over how forcefully to react to a veto.

Carl Hulse, our chief congressional correspondent, set up the week and the war debate on Capitol Hill in an earlier post today.

Senator Barack Obama, Democrat of Illinois, brought home the cost of war in a speech at the South-Central First AME Church. The Los Angeles Times reports:

“We have now spent half a trillion dollars on a war that should have never been authorized, and should have never been waged,” Obama said. “We could have invested that money in SouthCentral Los Angeles, or the South Side of Chicago, in jobs and infrastructure and hospitals and schools. Why is it we can find the money in a second for a war that doesn’t make any sense?”

His speech was the most direct address on race by any of the major presidential candidates who were in California over the weekend for the Democratic National Convention in San Diego.

The Times’s Jodi Kantor traces the evolution of Mr. Obama’s religious beliefs and tensions with his pastor in Chicago.

While much attention was focused over the weekend on the Democrats’s appearances in California, this week the spotlight will turn toward the Republicans as they appear at the Ronald Reagan library for their first real debate. Elizabeth Wilner, the former political director for NBC, reviews the field and the discontent among Republican voters for a clear post-Bush frontrunner, at The Politico (one of the sponsors of this debate). (We’ll be counting — like others — the number of times Reagan is invoked by the candidates.)

And as Ms. Wilner mentions, one who would attract the conservative base — former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson — isn’t participating but he’ll be making an appearance in the state the very next day.

Campaign cash is never far from our minds. The Wall Street Journal today examines the shift in business donations that’s occurring now that Democrats control the House and the Senate.

For the new Democratic bosses in the House, power has quickly translated into money, as many big companies have shifted more of their campaign contributions to the new congressional majority, and away from longtime Republican allies.

The top four House leaders — Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, Majority Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland and their main lieutenants — raised a combined $2.24 million in the first quarter of 2007, according to filings with the Federal Election Commission. That was more than three times as much as the $697,694 they raised in the first quarter of 2005, the comparable period in the previous two-year election cycle.

With 19 months to go until the 2008 election, Democratic committee chairmen have also seen their campaign coffers swell. For Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel of New York, contributions surged to $761,000 in the first quarter of 2007 from $57,000 two years earlier. Sharp increases were also reported for Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell — $376,000, up from $112,000; Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank of Massachusetts — $217,000, up from $39,000; and House Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton — $227,000, up from $57,000.

Some of the new money came from companies with a stake in the committees’ agendas.

People should keep in mind that Congresspersons who get more money from particular special interests than they need to get re-elected in their own safe gerrymandered districts use their surplus of campaign cash to influence outcomes elsewhere.

I would love to see a blog that relates to who within this administration is making money off this war, either directly or indirectly via family and friends. I feel quite certain substancial wealth is being gained by some, that of course would lead to the question,,”should they be allowed to do so ?”

In my opinion this war should never started. All the money wasted in that war could have biegn used for a better cause instead of bieng used to ship off americans to die in a war they had no intrest in. All the lifes wasted for nothing. The money wasted in the war could have biegn used agienst crime or to help with globol warming but was wasted in Bush’s war to steal oil.

In a post-Bill-Moyers’-“Buying the War” world, average Americans might want to be more cautious of taking too seriously the elite media’s word about what the campaign intelligence on Democrat candidates really means regarding the current war in Iraq, and particularly the value of ‘strong’ and ‘aggressive’ answers about what candidates might launch on Iran.

For example, there was no more telling knee-jerk reaction in the first debate than Clinton’s immediate and aggressive jumping to say, “I would retaliate” with military force.

This macho over-reaction to bomb was her first reaction —- just like Bush.

And yet, the elite media seemed not to question or even report this remarkable aggression from Clinton —– just like they accepted Bush’s need for an Iraq resolution in 2002, “just to show force — not necessarily to actually GO TO WAR in the spring of ‘03”.

The pay to play list at the end reflects the level of corruption in US politics. Similar behavior anywhere else, particularly in places like Haïti and Africa would be derided as abject examples of corruption.

But in the US, it’s the proverbial “free speech”, paying as much as possible so you can say as much as you want and also do whatever you want, denying the rest of the people the same unfettered access to elected officials.

Any way one sees this, it’s corruption, and it stinks to high heaven!

That is why, the US is one of the most corrupt – if not THE most corrupt – places on earth

Take the total cost of all political campaigns in this country, divide by the number of people, take all other private money out of politics – presto, per capita democracy. Say it takes $3 billion (because the numbers work out nicely; but it could be any amount lesser or greater than that) to give all candidates access to us voters, divide and you get about $10 for every man, woman and child in the US. Whether that’s annual or every congressional cycle would have to be worked out, as would how much newspapers, TV, and radio should be required to pony up in free or discounted access. What we get is elected representation at all levels with no regard to big money special interests. The interests will still be there but our leaders will no longer be beholden to them to get re-elected. Otherwise, the Dems are going to do exactly as the Reps did when they were in power; take in big buckos from companies with a dog in the fight (if you will.) The results will be pretty much what we have now: lousy public policy pushed down our throats by corporations whose sole concern is their bottom line, not ours.
Per capita democracy may just save this republic.

War profiteering among members of Congress is rampant and treasonous. And it’s not just the GOP. We all know that the neo-liberals are gaining fantastic wealth from this illegal invasion, but just one look at Dianne Feinstein’s blatant war profiteering and you’ll see this abhorrent behavior crosses party lines.

The impact of cash from K street, big Pharma and the MIC on our government cannot be underestimated.

Given that Google has saved every search every user has ever made, does anybody really believe we can’t follow the money if the political will was indicated? We live in a society where the default setting for technology is redundant conservation of all data. The problem to date is that John Q Public has yet to demand a full accounting. The only echoes I can hear right now are the sonic reflections of crisp bills being slipped into grateful political pockets (surreptitiously).

There still isn’t any candidate stating that Bush has to be impeached and removed before withdrawal to clear away the collaboration issue and bring back the 2 million refugee Iraqis who knew how to run its infrastructure.

President Obama drew criticism on Thursday when he said, “we don’t have a strategy yet,” for military action against ISIS in Syria. Lawmakers will weigh in on Mr. Obama’s comments on the Sunday shows.Read more…